## Facts

- A Nebraska attorney agreed to help clients franchise their coffee-shop business despite having limited franchising experience and having never represented a franchisor or researched governing franchise law.
- He drafted a franchise agreement and franchise disclosure statement using prior franchisee-side documents as templates and assumed federal FTC regulations preempted state requirements.
- A specialized intellectual-property attorney cautioned him that franchising is a specialized field.
- The clients sold approximately 21 franchises in multiple states using the attorney’s documents.
- After disputes with franchisees in Iowa and Colorado, outside counsel asserted the disclosure materials did not comply with federal and state law; the attorney revised the documents multiple times.
- The attorney assured the clients that later revisions were compliant in every state despite not undertaking sufficient legal research to support that claim.
- The Iowa dispute resulted in personal judgments against the clients, and a federal investigation later determined the disclosure statement had major deficiencies and did not comply with FTC rules; the clients’ franchising activities were shut down.
- In an original attorney-discipline proceeding, a referee found violations of the attorney’s oath and competency obligations, found the misconduct negligent rather than knowing, and recommended a public reprimand.
- No exceptions were filed to the referee’s factual findings; the only question before the court was the proper sanction.

## Issues

1. What sanction is appropriate when an attorney negligently undertakes specialized legal work without adequate preparation and research, resulting in significant client harm and public risk?

## Decision

- The court accepted the referee’s unchallenged factual findings but reviewed the sanction independently.
- The court rejected a public reprimand as insufficient.
- The court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for six months.
- The court required probationary conditions before the attorney could resume unsupervised practice, including supervision and continuing legal education.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline turns on whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate type under the circumstances.
- In setting discipline, the court considers: the nature of the offense; deterrence; the bar’s reputation; public protection; the lawyer’s general attitude; and present or future fitness to practice.
- The primary purpose of attorney discipline is protection of the public and the integrity of the profession, not punishment.
- Competent representation requires adequate legal preparation and research; it is inexcusable to pursue legal procedures without first ascertaining the governing law, particularly in specialized fields.
- Even absent dishonesty or intentional misconduct, sustained incompetence that causes substantial client harm may warrant a meaningful suspension rather than a reprimand.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension with post-suspension conditions because the attorney repeatedly handled specialized franchising work without adequate legal grounding, gave unsupported assurances of compliance, and caused serious harm to clients and the public, making a public reprimand inadequate for deterrence and protection.


State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Orr, 277 Neb. 102, 759 N.W.2d 702 (2009)